jwhitlark

I'm all for irony, but did they put any though into this app at all? (Given that they also inadvertently leaked their source code, perhaps not.)

Do you see your app as being useful to people researching more philosophical aspects of the Bible? (For instance: I'm atheist to the core, but I'm curious about the impact Stoicism had on the Bible.)

That is a Christian position, but I don't believe it's the only one, especially outside the US. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_infallibility for discussion.

As someone who has spent time in a combat unit, I can't come up with tactical or strategic advantages that this would create, even if you fully set morality aside. There are so many easier ways to suppress dissent or eliminate survivors that worrying about weaponizing this particular technology is like worrying about dropping toilets out of bombers; yea, you can kill people that way, but it's so impractical you have to ask if anyone is really going to try.

I was asking this as a serious question, in case I was missing something. But I still don't see it. This feels like it's so specialized that it'd be a dead end for anyone trying to weaponize it.

This is Nathan Marz we're talking about though; he's on the short list of people who can both accurately identify the need and create something workable to fill it. If he told me it was necessary for a particular problem domain, I (personally) would think long and hard before I disagreed.

But your distinction about the theoretical limitations vs the practical capabilities of current type systems is also a good point.

var flag_is_unset = flag_is_set

I generally land more on the dynamic side of things, but there are certainly problem domains where I love types. The more closed and "mathy" the domain, the better I think types fit. I just wish it was less an all-or-nothing choice, and that people were less religious about it.

Thank you for asking a question instead of resorting to a flame war. I'll try to come up with a better way to get my point across.

I wouldn't make the blanket argument that you get what you pay for, in government or anywhere else, but you very rarely get what you don't pay for.

Why do we single out Government for this treatment? We don't generally say "Look at that homeowner, with that mortgage, the just can't help spending more than they have." We certainly don't say that about startups raising funds, either...

Maybe we're talking past each other, but the essay seemed to be arguing that Christianity was both the source and only legitimate basis for modern human rights, and I don't think the historical record supports that argument at all.

The author is claiming otherwise and failing to back it up.

The author would have us forget that much of the Enlightenment came from the rediscovery of Greek and Roman knowledge.

The whole article reads as an attempt to convince atheists that they're not really atheist, that all their ideas came from religion and are worthless without religion, completely ignoring the role philosophy had in creating those ideas, long before Christianity was on the scene.